Nonstrange and other unitarity partners of the exotic Theta+ baryon

Nonstrange and other flavor partners of the exotic + baryon

R. A. Arndt 1 *, Ya. I. Azimov 2 t, M. V. Polyakov 234 * , I. I. Strakovsky 1 ^ R. L. Workman 1 ^

1 Center for Nuclear Studies, Department of Physics,
The George Washington University,
Washington, B.C. 20052, USA

2 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,
Gatchina, St. Petersburg 188300, Russia

3 Universite de Liege au Sart Tilman,

B-4000 Liege 1 Belgium
^Institute for Theoretical Physics II,
Ruhr University, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Given presently known empirical information about the exotic Q + baryon, we analyze possible
properties of its S'L r (3)F-partners, paying special attention to the nonstrange member of the antide-
cuplet N* . The modified PWA analysis presents two candidate masses, 1680 MeV and 1730 MeV. In
both cases the N* should be highly inelastic. The theoretical analysis, based on the soliton picture
and assumption of r e + < 5 MeV, shows that most probably Tat* < 30 MeV. Similar analysis for
"3/2 predicts its width to be not more than about 10 MeV. Our results suggest several directions
for experimental studies that may clarify properties of the antidecuplet baryons, and structure of
their mixing with other baryons.

PACS numbers: 14.20.Gk, 11.80.Et, 13.30.Eg

I. INTRODUCTION

The observation of narrow peaks in the invariant mass spectra of nK+ [1 H H & @ and pKs

events,

verified by independent groups and laboratories worldwide, has solidified the evidence for an exotic baryon + with
strangeness +1, a mass of about 1540 MeV, and a narrow width. The existence of such a particle implies a whole
new family of S'[/(3)F-partners, beyond the familiar octets and decuplets. This state was predicted (both the mass
and the narrow width) [TlJ on the basis of a chiral soliton approach to hadron dynamics. In this approach it should
be a member of a flavor antidecuplet with J p = 1/2+.

The antidecuplet had emerged even earlier in various versions of the soliton approach to 3-flavor QCD (for a brief
review of the history and earlier references see, e.g., 0, fl^L However, the expected masses of its members

had always been rather uncertain, at least up to ~ 100 MeV. Until Ref. the question of width, also essential
for experimental searches, had not been addressed at all. To make the + -mass prediction more definite, it was
suggested in to identify the non-strange member of the antidecuplet with the 7V(1710), the only nucleon state
listed in the PDG-tables [15| having J p = 1/2+ and being in the expected mass interval. Clearly, this assignment
resulted in a good agreement with later experimental findings for the + mass. Given the present more detailed
knowledge of + -properties, and with higher-statistics experiments under preparation, it is important to reconsider
the antidecuplet nature of the 7V(1710).

* Email: arndt@reo.ntelos.net

' Email: azimov@pal400.spb.edu

t Email: Maxim.Polyakov@ulg.ac.be

§ Email: igor@gwu.edu

^ Email: rworkman@gwu.edu

2

Let us first summarize our present knowledge of the + -width. The theoretical prediction, simultaneous with its
mass, was r@+ < 15 MeV unexpectedly narrow for strong decays. Existing measurements, instead of determining
r@+, have only shown it to be smaller than experimental resolution (see Table QJ. Most experimental publications
have given an upper bound of about ~ 20 MeV. Xenon bubble chamber data, corresponding in essence to the charge
exchange reaction K + n — » K°j>, have provided the slightly lower bound of 9 MeV |(|.

Less direct determinations |l9j, using previously measured K + d total cross sections, have led to a stronger limitation
r e + < 6 MeV. A similar bound, < 5 MeV, was obtained in Ref. [20| within a more elaborated theoretical description.
The partial-wave analysis (PWA) of available KN (elastic and charge exchange) scattering data similarly claims to
exclude widths above 1-2 MeV ED. A more detailed reexamination of the approach in Ref. provides nearly the
same result of Tq+ < 1.5 MeV 23]. A similar method applied to the Xenon data has allowed even the tentative
claim of a lower limit r e + = 0.9±0.3 MeV [22] (with additional assumptions and an unknown systematic uncertainty).
One should emphasize, however, that all of these indirect treatments assume the existence of a + , which they can
not confirm. Moreover, they are based mainly on rather old data, which may be shifted by the next generation of
higher precision measurements. Nevertheless, we should take these results into account when discussing the + as
given by the present data.

Evidently, all of the above estimates for T@+ are in sharp contrast with the width ~ 100 MeV ascribed to the
AT(1710), initially considered to be a unitary partner of the + Of course, members of the same unitary multiplet
can have different widths, but in the absence of a special reason (say, mixing with members of another multiplet) it
would be more natural for them to have comparable widths.

Additional information related to the assignment of unitary partners is due to a recent experimental result pij
giving evidence for one further explicitly exotic particle with a mass 1862 ± 2 MeV and width < 18 MeV (i.e.

less than resolution). Such a particle had been expected to exist as a member of the same antidecuplet containing the
+ , but its mass was predicted to be about 2070 MeV 0], essentially different from the experimental value. This
has posed similar problems for the masses of other unitary partners of the + , nucleon-like and E-like. The supposed
antidecuplet looks today as shown on Fig. with E- and V-masses determined by the Gell-Mann-Okubo rule.

The state iV(1710), though listed in the PDG Baryon Summary Table ^5| as a 3-star resonance, is not seen in a
recent analysis of pion-nucleon elastic scattering data [25|. Studies which have claimed to see this state have given
widely varying estimates of its mass and width (from ~ 1680 MeV to ~ 1740 MeV for the mass and from ~ 90 MeV
to ~ 500 MeV for the width). Branching ratios have also been given with large uncertainties (10-20% for Nir, 40-90%
for Nirir, and so on), apart from one which has been presented with greater precision (6 ± 1% for Nrf).

Of course the non-observation of a broad 7V(1710) state in pion-nucleon elastic analyses could be due to a very small
ttN branching ratio. Standard procedures used in partial- wave analysis (PWA) may also miss narrow resonances with
r < 30 MeV (a similar situation below inelastic thresholds has been discussed in [2(|). Therefore, the true unitary
partner of the + (if it is different from iV(1710) and sufficiently narrow) could have eluded detection.

Here we reconsider the identity of N* , the nucleon-like partner of + , and investigate the possible existence and
properties of narrow non-strange state(s) near 1700 MeV. We first consider modifications of a PWA with narrow
resonances, and apply the results to irN elastic scattering at W ~ 1700 MeV (Section [HJ) . Section HTD presents a
discussion of possible properties of the N* in the soliton picture with baryon mixing and for a small + width. Some
expected properties of the S 3 / 2 are also considered. Our results are briefly discussed and conclusions formulated in
Section H3

II. NARROW RESONANCES IN PARTIAL- WAVE ANALYSES

We have emphasized earlier j2(| that standard methods of PWA are insensitive to very narrow resonances. Therefore,
a modified approach is required to search for the presence of a narrow resonance with particular values of mass and
width [2(j (see also |2l|). We consider the situation in more detail, separately for elastic and inelastic cases.

3

A. Elastic case

Interaction in the elastic case may transform a state a only to a similar state a' (changing, for example, particle
momenta without changing particle identity). One can then choose physical states, so as to diagonalize the S matrix,
{e.g., for the ttN scattering, take states with definite values of energy, isospin, parity, and angular momentum), and
have only diagonal transitions a — » a with S matrix elements

(a\S\a) = e 2 ^ . (1)

Standard methods employ some parametrization of the interaction phase 5 a , fitting these parameters to describe
experimental data. Instead, we will split the phase as

Sa = 5f + S R . (2)

The background part exp(2i(5 ( f ) may be parametrized as before, while the resonance part has the canonical Breit-
Wigner form

2l5a = Mr-W + »IW2

Mr -W- iT R /2 ■ 1 1

If refitting (over the whole database) with some fixed values of Mr and Tr provides a worse description (higher x 2 )
than without the resonance, then a resonance R with the corresponding mass and width is unsupported. If the new
description is better (has lower x 2 ), then the resonance may exist.

At first sight, we have increased the number of parameters and, therefore, should always have a better description.
This is not necessarily so, due to the specific form used to introduce these two additional parameters, and the fixed
values assigned to them. Moreover, we have demonstrated in Ref. [2fi| that a better description (lower x 2 ) may result
for various reasons not associated with the presence of a resonance. Nevertheless, searching for a better description
allows us to restrict the region in {Mr, Tr) space, where a resonance may be assumed. This is the approach that
was used earlier as a basis for numerical procedures which restricted admissible widths of light ttN resonances [2(|
and of the 9+ [p.

B. Inelastic case

For energies near W ~ 1700 MeV, we may be sensitive to thresholds for the production of additional (or different)
mesons, and one should take the inelasticity into account even when investigating purely elastic ttN scattering.

Because of inelastic transitions, nondiagonal S matrix elements, generally, do not vanish. However, the S matrix is
a unitary operator and, hence, can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation:

S = US^U~ 1 , (4)

with having a diagonalized form and

^|[/ an | 2 = ^|[/ an | 2 = l, (5)

n>0 a

due to unitarity. One can present an elastic amplitude (for example, a partial-wave amplitude) as

{a\S\a) = J2\U an \ 2 e 2i5 ", (6)

n>0

4

where the unitarity of U has been used. The form © implies the well-known relation

|(a|S-|a)|<^|C/ on | 2 = l. (7)

n>0

If the resonance candidate R is narrow enough to avoid overlap with other resonances, the explicit resonance
behavior can be inserted in only one of S n , say, to So-

So = So 3 + 5r (8)

(compare to Eq. J5J). Then,

(a\S\a) = \U a0 \ 2 e 2«« + \U an \ 2 e 2 *> . (9)

n>l

All cmantities on the right hand side of Eq. depend on energy, but only Sr has a sharp energy dependence near
the resonance.

It is easy to see that

\Uao\ 2 \w=M R =r a (10)
is the branching ratio for a particular decay mode R — > a. Then, Eq. (JSJ provides the expected relation

a

Now, we can rewrite Eq. JHJ as

(a\S\a) = r a A(W) e 2t5 » + (1 - r a )B(W) , (12)

where

r a \A(W)\ + (l-r a )\B(W)\<l, \A(M R )\ = 1. (13)

The expressions p2H and l|13fl can be used to construct a parametrization and numerical procedure, similar to one
described in Ref. 25], to test for the existence of a possible resonance R.

Note that, in the inelastic case, description of the resonance contribution to the elastic amplitude a — > a contains
three parameters (Mr, Tr, r a ), instead of two in the elastic case. However, far from the resonance, at \ W— Mr\ ^> Tr,
the contribution takes the form oc T a /(Mr — W), sensitive only to the partial decay width

T a =r a T R . (14)

This is trivially true for a purely elastic resonance, for which partial and total widths coincide.

C. Fitting the data

Nucleon-like states may be revealed in various processes, with various initial and final states. But most convincing
are their manifestations in nN elastic scattering. As a result, we consider here only elastic (and charge exchange)
data.

We begin by considering the nN partial wave Pn, as this amplitude is associated with resonances having J p = 1/2+.
The character of x 2_ changes, A^ 2 , after inserting a narrow resonance with a range of masses, widths, and branching
fractions is illustrated in Fig. [21 The resonance mass has been allowed to vary from 1620 to 1760 MeV in 10 MeV

5

steps. For the total width, we have used five values in the intervals 0.1—0.9 MeV (step 0.2 MeV) and 1—9 MeV (step
2 MeV). For easier tracing, we have connected points having consecutive values of the mass and identical values for
the other parameters.

Negative values of A% 2 emerge most readily near Mr = 1680 MeV and 1730 MeV. We see that A% 2 becomes
negative only for T e i — (T e i/T to t) • ^tot within the bounds

T ei < 0.5 [0.3] MeV (15)

for Mr = 1680 [1730] MeV. The available data can not reliably discriminate values of T e i below these bounds. Neither
can they discriminate the particular values of T to t- Note that, for higher values of T to t, such states could presumably
be seen in a standard PWA; however with the above restrictions for T e i these resonances would be extremely inelastic
and have little effect on the elastic scattering process. Thus, for J p — l/2 + , we see two possible mass values for the
nucleon-type resonance statc(s), both having rather small elastic (i.e. irN) partial widths.

It was demonstrated, however, in Ref. j2|| that A\ 2 < does not necessarily mean the real existence of a resonance.
The "resonance" may be only an effective mechanism to introduce corrections, e.g., in the presence of unaccounted
(or badly accounted) for singularities (say, thresholds), or insufficient and/or poor quality of data.

A true resonance should provide an effect only when being inserted into a particular partial amplitude, while non-
resonant sources may show sensitivity in various partial-wave amplitudes. To check this possibility, we have repeated
the insertion-refitting procedure for the partial-wave amplitudes Su and P13, having the J p quantum numbers 1/2 -
and 3/2 + , respectively. Using the same values as before for the mass, width, and branching ratio of the assumed
resonance, produces the results for Su and Pi 3 illustrated in Fig. El N° effect emerges at Mr = 1680 MeV, enhancing
the expectation of a true Pn resonance effect at this mass.

In the 1700-1740 MeV region, variations for Su and Pi 3 show shallow dips, somewhat similar to one for Pn. This
may cast doubt on the existence of a true narrow resonance in this interval. However, the dips for 5*11 and Pi 3 are
qualitatively different than for Pn; as a result, we do not consider a narrow resonance with Mr = 1730 MeV to be
excluded.

The above dips in A\ 2 could be induced by the nearby thresholds, Nui with Wth ~ 1720 MeV, and N p with
Wth ~ 1710 MeV (note, however, its larger distance from the physical region due to the width of the p). It is
interesting that Mr = 1680 MeV appears also near the KY, threshold with Wth ~ 1685 MeV. There are many-
particle thresholds as well, but their contributions are expected to be less important than two-particle ones, due to
much smaller phase-space near the thresholds, and we do not consider them here. None of these thresholds have been
accounted for in the PWA parametrizations of ttN data.

Concluding this section, we emphasize that our results suggest two possible masses for a narrow nucleon-like
resonance(s) having J p = l/2 + and a mass near 1700 MeV. One of these, near 1680 MeV, looks more promising.
Though our approach can give candidate values of mass and width for narrow resonance(s), it does not prove the
existence of a resonance. Therefore, all our candidates need further direct and detailed experimental checks.

III. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

Let us discuss the above results as compared to expected properties of the antidecuplet members in the soliton
picture.

The antidecuplet mass differences (say, between 8 + and N*, its non-strange partner), based on this picture and
presented in Ref. JllJ], is about 180 MeV. Using the measured value M@ — 1540 MeV, we should obtain Mjy* =
1720 MeV, which is close to the heavier candidate mass, 1730 MeV, of the preceding Section.

However, the soliton calculation of this mass difference requires some assumptions. In particular, it depends on the
value of the cr-term, which is the subject of controversy. Its value, taken according to the latest data analysis [27| .
leads to an antidecuplet mass difference of about 110 MeV [28|.

Moreover, today one is able to use another, more phenomenological approach. If the states S 3 / 2 [24[ and are
indeed members of the same antidecuplet, then, according to the Gell-Mann-Okubo rule, the mass difference of any

6

two neighboring isospin multiplets in the antidecuplet should be constant and equal

(M S3/2 - Af e )/3 « 107 MeV.

This gives Mm- ~ 1650 MeV, near but lower than our lighter candidate mass, 1680 MeV. Due to SU(3) F-violating
mixing with lower-lying nucleon-like octet states, Mjv* may shift upward, and reach about 1680 MeV Effil . Mixing
with higher-lying nucleon-like members of exotic 27- and 35-plets may also play a role (see Refs. fl2l Il3l Il4| l. Note
that the effects of multiplet mixing on masses is parametrically of order O(mj) which is beyond approximations used
in Ref. [HI.

In discussing the expected decays for the antidecuplet candidates, we mainly follow Ref. [ll|. Though expressions
for the widths will be taken in a somewhat more general form |29| , mixing of states will be taken in the same simplified
form as in Ref. We further assume that only one nucleon-like resonance exists near 1700 MeV.

A. Decays of B +

We can write a partial width for the decay B\ — > M + B-i as [3(4

nB^MB 2 )= 9 l iB2M . MA f +M2)2 g, (16)

where \p\ is the cm. momentum of the final meson. In terms of the baryon masses M\, M%, and the meson mass m,
we have

\p\ = yj [Mj 2 - (M 2 + to) 2 ] ■ [Mf - (M 2 - mf]/2M l . (17)

Then, in the framework of the chiral soliton approach, for the total width of 8 + (summed over two decay modes), we
obtain [3l|

r(e+-#JVT) = - .(cnt-Gn+smt.H^) . —^L-— MlL . (18)
' 5 I v 10 v 10 4 2%{M e + M N ) 2 M

Here, we admit the possibility of S'?7(3)F-symmetry breaking, which allows mixing of the baryon antidecuplet and
octet states. For simplicity, we mix here only a pair of soliton rotational states, the ground state N and its rotational
excitation N* , which is a member of the same antidecuplet as + . As a result, instead of one coupling parameter Gjq,
we obtain the set of three parameters (ifjg, sin0, Gj^). The chiral soliton approach allows these to be determined,
but with different levels of reliability.

The constants Hj^ and Gjq can be ex pres sed in terms of universal constants Go , G\ , and G2 ■ The corresponding
expressions are (see [14 l32j for Hj^ and [ll| for Gjq):

H w = G o - o G l + o G 2 , (19)

5^ 1
-Gi + -(

2 1 2

G^ = Go - d - ]-G 2 . (20)

Analysis of Ref. [TlJ showed that the constant G 2 is very small, and in what follows we neglect it. The octet coupling
Gs — Go + Gi /2 can be reliably extracted from properties of octet and decuplet baryons; in accordance with Ref. ,
we take it here as Gs ~ 18. In this way, we can relate constants Hj^ and Gjq by

^ G To — ^To ~ G§ « 18.

7

Keeping this in mind, we give below only values of Gjq. Note that at small G2 and G\, Gj^ ~ Hj^ ss Gs, while at
small G2 and Gjq, Hj^ w — Gs.

The mixing angle </> is less reliable. Basing on its estimates in Ref. |Tl|. we use sin</> « 0.085 (i.e., (f> sa 5°).

The coupling Gj^ is the least known quantity. In the soliton picture, it receives different contributions which tend
to cancel each other, making a definite conclusion difficult. Nevertheless, Gjq was demonstrated to be suppressed, and
the conservative upper bound of Gjq < 9.5 has been given [Tl): moreover, it was shown that in the non-relativistic
limit for the quarks, the constant Gjg tends to zero (see also Ref. (^3], where it was shown that this cancellation
happens for an y n umber of colors). All these results suggest the coupling constant to be considerably smaller than
its upper limit |34j.

With expression JTHJ and Me = 1540 MeV, the restrictions r(6+ -» KN) < 1 [3; 5] MeV lead to
-1.4 [-2.9; -4.0] < G-^ < 2.9 [4.5; 5.6] . We do not insist on the limit T e + - 1 MeV as given by Refs. |2ll EI I2H] .
as it is based mainly on older experiments. But we consider values higher than 5 MeV to be improbable.

B. Decays of iV*

A large numerical value of Gs (and Hj^), compared to Gjq, makes even a small octet-antidecuplet mixing a very
important effect in decays of the + . It is even more important for decays of the N* , the non-strange Pn member
of the antidecuplet (assumed in Ref. 11] to be identified with iV(1710)).

First of all, the octet-antidecuplet mixing allows the decay N* — > 7rA, otherwise forbidden for the pure antidecuplet
member. In addition, mixing essentially influences the partial decay width TV* — > KA. A description of mixing effects
in N* decays is most simple just for these two modes, since for them only the initial state N* has octet partner(s) to
mix with. (Both the A and A could mix with the antidecuplet members only under isospin violation. In decays of the
+ , only the final nucleon can mix, by assumption, just with N*.) These decay modes allow us to draw interesting
conclusions concerning the N*.

The corresponding partial widths of the N* are :

T(N* -> ttA)
T(N* -> KA)

12

\Pka\ 3

Mi

— ■ (sin cf> ■ Gs) 2 ■ 2< k (Mn* + Ma) 2

3

20

G

10

G,

4

7E

\pka\ 3 M a
2tt(M n * + Ma) 2 M n ,

(21)
(22)

The decay widths here are summed over possible charge states of the final hadrons.

Note that TJ A = T(N* — * nA) is independent of the very uncertain antidecuplet coupling Gjq. Using the above-
given values of other parameters, for Mn* = 1680 [1730] MeV, leads to

-Mr A

2.8 [3.51 MeV

(23)

and (for positive G-^) Tf A > 0.17 [0.36] MeV. Taking G-^ = 2.9 (the highest value compatible with T e = 1 MeV)

gives

0.70 [1.561 MeV .

(24)

again, for M N , = 1680 [1730] MeV.

To investigate decays N* — > ttN, rjN, and KT,, one needs to account for mixing of both initial and final baryons.
Taking for coupling constants the linear approximation in sin cj>, we obtain

T (N* -> irN)

3

sin <f>

20 '

V5

3

(gto +

sin0

20 '

V5

7G 8 - -i%

Gs — --Httt

\Pttn\ 3

Mn_

2tt(M n , + M N ) 2 M N ,

2 I -T* 13

\Pt)n\

M

N

2tt{M n . + M N ) 2 Mat* '

(25)
(26)

8

For positive Gjq, it gives a cancellation of the vertex for the 7rTV decay mode and enhancement due to mixing for the rjN
mode (note in addition that the decay TV* (1680) — ► KT, is forbidden andTV*(1730) — > KT, is suppressed by kinematics) .
This picture does not look contradictory. However, a detailed description of the decays by expressions (|25[1 . I|26ll . and
(|27[l may be too simplified. Indeed, Eq. (|25[l with Gjq = 2.9 (which leads to the strongest cancellation compatible
with r 0+ = 1 MeV) gives

Tl N = 2.1 [2.3] MeV

for Mjv» = 1680 [1730] MeV, in contradiction with the restrictions (|15|l . In other words, in such a simple picture
of mixing between only two nucleon-like states, restrictions for T^ N are incompatible with Tg+ ~ 1 MeV. However,
a very small ttN partial width T^ N could be easily accommodated by the soliton picture of the octet-antidecuplct
mixing if r e + ~ 5 MeV.

The situation can be changed if we take into account mixing with one more nucleon-like state. Such a case was
suggested, e.g., by Jaffe and Wilczek |3{j, as mixing with TV(1440). However, they assumed the complete flavor
separation for a colored quark-antiquark pair, which contradicts the existing understanding of how the OZI-rulc
works. We prefer a more phenomenological version |28j. If the sign of the mixing angle 6n, as introduced in
Ref. |28f. is opposite to the sign of the octet-antidecuplet mixing angle <f>, then the additional contribution may
provide additional cancellation, and diminish the partial width of the ttN decay mode, making it compatible with
Tq+ ~ 1 MeV. Regretfully at present, we can not determine the correct relative sign for mixings of TV* with TV and,
say, TV(1440). This would require a knowledge of the nature and/or inner structure of all the involved states. Given
the small value of Gy^-, we should not expect a large mixing angle 6^ of TV* with TV(1440), as it would lead to rather
large irN partial width of TV*.

Thus, in the framework of the soliton picture (with mixing to additional nucleon-like states), a + -width of about
1 MeV implies that its non-strange partner in the antidecuplet may have a partial width of about 4 MeV for the
SU(3) ^-violating ttA decay mode, up to 1 MeV for the KA mode, and a couple of MeV for the rjN channel. Decay to
KT should be small, if possible at all. The total TV*-width, with all decay modes together, might achieve ~ 10 MeV,
so that the TV* state would be wider than the + , though still narrow.

As a resonance in irN collisions, the state TV* should be rather narrow and highly inelastic, with a preference to
decay mainly into irirN final states. Restrictions (|15|l for T^ N lead to a very small elastic branching for TV* — > irN,
not more than 5%. Such a peak can not be extracted by standard methods of PWA.

The assumption of a larger Tq+ (up to about 5 MeV) does not influence the most intensive decay channel TV* — > irA.
Therefore, it does not change the essential features of the above conclusions. Note that measurements of the ratio of
7T iV and 77TV partial widths may provide us with valuable information about octet-antidecuplet mixing.

These findings together explain why the suggested TV* has not been observed up to now. At the same time, the
above estimated width of the TV*, as compared to + , looks much more reasonable for the antidecuplet member state
than the range of values tabulated for the TV(1710) by the PDG [HJ.

2G 8

5„
2 H ™

My

2n(M N . + M s ) 2 M 2

N*

(27)

C. Decays of H 3/2

The above approach can be applied also to other antidecuplet members. We will not discuss here decays of the
S-like partner of the + , which should be more essentially influenced by mixing(s). Instead, we consider possible
decays of the S-like partner.

The quantum numbers and mass 1862 MeV of the S 3 / 2 admit 2-body decay modes 7rS, KT,, and 7rS(1530). The
latter decay would be analogous to TV* — > 7rA, but is stronger forbidden by the 5J7(3)_F-symmetry, since H3/2, contrary
to TV* , can not be mixed with octet members, because of its different isospin. The decay could be allowed, nevertheless,
by mixing of the decuplet S(1530) with some octet S's, which appears to be negligible. Another possibility for this
decay would involve the mixing of the S 3 / 2 with a similar state belonging to a higher S'[/(3)i?-multiplet, such as the

9

27- or 35-plet. However, at present, we have not any definite information on such states. That is why we do not
discuss here the decay to S(1530), though its experimental study could give interesting and useful information.
For the partial widths of decay modes 7rS and ifE, we obtain expressions similar to Eq. I|16|) :

r(H 3 /2^7r3) = A

r(5 3/2 -3?s) = 1

Note that the decay S 3 / 2 — * ttS depends only on Gj^.

For positive Gj^, consistent with T e + « 1 MeV (i.e., Gjq « 2.9), these widths are the order of a few MeV,

T (3 3/2 -> ttS) « 2.6 MeV , T (S 3/2 -> ITS) « 2.0 MeV .

On the other hand, for negative Gjq, again consistent with Tq+ w 1 MeV (this time, Gjq w —1.4; note that negative
values of Gj^ seem to be allowed theoretically), we obtain an extremely narrow £3/2

T (S 3/2 -» ttS) « 0.6 MeV , T (S 3/2 -> #£) » 23 keV ,

with Fs 3/2 perhaps somewhat smaller than Tq+ . In both cases r~ 3/2 is small and would be very difficult to measure
directly. Instead, there is another interesting possibility. The relative intensity of the two S 3 / 2 -decay modes, 7rS and
KT,, may be very different, depending on the manner of S'?7(3)i?-violating mixing. The branching ratio for the latter
mode may be cither negligible, or of the same order (or even larger) as compared to the former one. A measurement
of this ratio should be experimentally feasible.

IV. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

To summarize, given our current knowledge of the + , the state commonly known as the iV(1710) is not the
appropriate candidate to be a member of the antidecuplet together with the + . Instead, we suggest candidates with
nearby masses, 2V(1680) (more promising) and/or AT(1730) (less promising, but not excluded). Our analysis suggests
that the appropriate state should be rather narrow and very inelastic. Similar considerations have been applied to
the S 3 / 2 (1862), assumed to be also a member of the same antidecuplet. It should also be quite narrow.

One can ask how definite are our theoretical predictions. They have, indeed, essential theoretical uncertainties. For
example, the mixing angle (f>, taken from Ref. (Tj, was actually determined through formulas containing the cr-term
(just as the mass difference in the antidecuplet). If we use parameters corresponding to more recent information, for
both the CT-term and the mass difference, we obtain larger mixing, up to sin0 ~ 0.15. With our formulas, this would
most strongly influence the partial width N* ~ * irA, increasing it to about 15 MeV. Other partial widths of N* change
not so dramatically, and the total width appears to remain not higher than ~ 30 MeV. Such a width could well be
measured, but not in elastic scattering, because of an expected very small elastic branching ratio. Note, however,
that the above large value for sin</> may appear problematic, since the formulas of Ref. |ll| assume linearisation with
respect to SU(3) jr-violation, and need to be reconsidered if the violation appears to be large.

A high degree of uncertainty emerges also because our approach can not definitely establish the existence of the
resonance(s). We have assumed the presence of only one state with J p = 1/2+, either AT(1680) or iV(1730). If both
exist, they should essentially mix due to their nearby masses, strongly changing our estimates.

Nevertheless, even having in mind all theoretical uncertainties, we can suggest several directions for experimental
studies. First of all, one should search for possible new narrow nucleon state(s) in the mass region near 1680 and/or
1730 MeV. Searches may use various initial states, (e.g., irN collision or photoproduction) . We expect the largest
effect in the irirN final state (though irA is forbidden by SU(3)f)- The final states r)N and KA may also be interesting

G-

10

27t(Me 3/2 + Ms) 2 Mh 3

cos 4> ■ Gjq -

M s

2tt(M H 3

/2

M s ) 2 M E

(28)
(29)

10

and useful, especially the ratio of r]N and wN partial widths as the latter is very sensitive to the structure of the
octet-antidecuplet mixing. Another interesting possibility to separate antidecuplet and octet components of N* is
provided by comparison of photoexcitation amplitudes for neutral and charged isocomponents of this resonance, the
point being that the antidecuplet component does not contribute to the photoexcitation of the charged component of
N* (see details in Ref. 0).

For £3/2, attempts to measure the total width are necessary, though it could possibly be even smaller than Tq+.
Branching ratios for KY, and 7rS(1530), in relation to 7rE, are very interesting. These may give important information
on the mixing of antidecuplet baryons with octets and higher S'J7(3)i?-multiplets.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank D. I. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov, and P. V. Pobylitsa for many helpful discussions. Special thanks
are due to M. Praszalowicz for very valuable discussions. Ya. A. thanks Prof. K. Goeke for hospitality extended to
him in the Institute for Theoretical Physics II of the Ruhr- University Bochum at final stages of the work. The work
was partly supported by the U. S. Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-99ER41110, by the Jefferson Laboratory,
by the Southeastern Universities Research Association under DOE Contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, by the Russian
State Grant SS-1124.2003.2, and by the Sofja Kovalevskaja Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation,
the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Programme for Investment in the Future of the
German Government.

T. Nakano et al, [LEPS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012002 (2003) hep-ex/0301020 .
S. Stepanyan et al, [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 252001 (2003) hep-ex/0307018 .

V. Koubarovsky and S. Stepanyan, [CLAS Collaboration], in Proceedings of "Conference on the Intersections of Particle

and Nuclear Physics (CIPANP2003), New York, NY, USA, May 19-24, 2003", to be published hep-ex/0307088 .

J. Barth et al, [SAPHIR Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B572, 127 (2003) hep-ex/03070 8"3|.

V. Koubarovsky et al., [CLAS Collaboration], to be published in Phys. Rev. Lett., hep-ex/0311046

V. V. Ba rmin et al, [DIANA Collaboration], Phys. Atom. Nuclei 66, 1715 (2003) [Yad. Fiz. 66, 1763 (2003)]

hep-ex/0304040 .

A. E. Asratyan et al, to be published in Phys. Atom. Nuclei (2004) [Yad. Fiz. (2004)] |hep-e x/0309042 .
A. Airapetian et al, [HERMES Collaboration], submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett, hep-ex/0312044
S. Chekanov [ZEUS Collaboration], http://www.desy.de/f/seminar/sem-schedule.html

D. Barna and F. Sikler [NA49 Collaboration], NA49 Note 294, http://na49info.cern.ch/cgi-bin/wwwd-util/NA49/NOTE7294
D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, and M. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A 359, 305 (1997) hep-ph/9703373 .

H. Walliser and V. Kopeliovich, J. Exp. Theor. P hys. 97, 433 (2003 ) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 124, 483 (2003) |hep-ph/030 4058 .
M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Lett. B575, 234 (2 003) |hep^ ph/0308114 .
J. Ellis, M. Karliner, and M. Praszalowicz, hep-ph/0401127

K. Hagiwara et al, Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002), http://pdg.lbl.gov.
R. Koch, Z. Phys. C 29, 597 (1985);

G. Hohler, Pion-Nucleon Scattering, Landoldt-Bornstein Vol. I/9b2, edited by H. Schopper (Springer Verlag, 1983).

R. E. Cutkosky et al, in Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Baryon Resonances, Toronto, Canada, July 14~16,

1980, published in Baryon 1980:19 (QCD161:C45:1980);

R. E. Cutkosky and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 42, 235 (1990).

D. M. Manl ey and E. M. Sale ski, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4002 (1992).

S. Nussinov, hep-ph/0307357

J. Haidenbauer and G. Krein, Phys. Rev. C 68, 052201 (2003) |hep-ph/0309243] .

R. A. Arndt, I. I. Strakovsky, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 68, 042201 (2003) nucl-th/0308012 .
R. N. Cahn and G. H. Trilling, to be published in Phys. Rev. D hep-ph/0311245 .

11

[23] R. A. Arndt, 1. 1. Strakovsky, and R. L. Workman, in Proceedings of the VIII International Conference on Hypernuclear and
Strange Particle Physics, Jefferson Lab, Newport News, VA, USA, October 14— 18, 2003, to be published [nucl-t h/0311030 .

C. Alt et al. [NA49 Collaboration], to be published in Phys. Rev. Lett., hep-ex/0310014

R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, 1. 1. Strakovsky, R. L. Workman, and M. M. Pavan, submitted to Phys. Rev. C, nucl-th/0311089
Ya. I. Azimov, R. A. Arndt, I. I. Strakovsky, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 68, 045204 (2003) nucl-th/0307088 .
M. M. Pavan, R. A. Arndt, I. I. Strakovsky, and R. L. Workman, in Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on
Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon (MENU2001), Washingt on, DC, U SA, July 26-31, 2001, edited
by H. Haberzettl and W. J. Briscoe, ttN New slett. 16, 110 (2002) [Eprint |hep-ph/0111066l .

D. Diakonov and V. Petrov, hep-ph/0310212

For example, it was assumed in HHl that parametrically G$/Gjq ~ 1, on basis of large N c counting. Here, we use a more
phenomenological approach leaving Gjg unconstrained.

The factor is related to the nonrelativistic normalization of baryonic states in the soliton picture. Note also that degree
of this factor depends on the spin of the participating baryons.

We take this opportunity to correct a misprint in the corresponding expression of Ref. [Til ]. The coefficient in front of its

second term should be %/5/2 instead of \/5/4.

H. C. Kim and M. Praszalowicz, submitted to Phys. Lett. B, hep-ph/0308242 (version 2).
M. Praszalowicz, hep__ph/0311230

Analysis of Rathke j35| . performed for Gjq in the framework of the chiral quark-soliton model |36|. gave a value of about
5, but it could be even smaller.

A. Rathke, Diploma Thesis, Bochum University (1998).

D. Diakonov and V. Y. Petrov, in The Frontier of Particle Physics/Handbook of QCD; Boris Ioffe Festschrift, edited by
M. Shifman, (World Scientific, 2001) vol. 1, p. 359 hep-ph/0009006 .
C. V. Christov et al, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 91 (1996) hep-ph/9604441 .

Note that, for iV — > A transition, we employ here the kinematical correction factor suggested in |3S| .
T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein, and N. C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. D 51, 158 (1995) hep-ph/9409323 .
R. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 232003 (2003) hep-ph/0307341 .
M. V. Polyakov and A. Rathke, Eur. Phys. J. A 18, 691 (2003) hep-ph/0303138 .

TABLE I: Comparison of 9+ and N(1710) properties.

Collaboration

Mass

Width

Ref

Collaboration

"TV T TTT» 111 ~T"» f

Mass Width Ref

(MeV)

(MeV)

/ Ti IT T T\ / Ti IT T T\

(MeV) (MeV)

DPP

1530

<15

r-i 1 1

M

DPP

1710 111]

LEPS

1540±10

<25

U]

DIANA

1539±2

<9

[£]

CLAS/7U

1542±5

<21

rr»i

M

CLAS/7P

1540±10

<32

[3J

ELSA

1540±4±2

<25

\£

ITEP/V

1533±5

<20

w

HERMES

1526±2.6±2.1

<19

M

CLAS/ip

1555±10

<26

M

ZEUS

1527±2

<24

M

NA49

1535

[ioj

use

1543

<6

[19]

KH

1723±9 120±15 [16]

GWU

1540-1550

<1

[21]

CMU

1700±50 90±30 [17]

Jiilich

1545

<5

[20]

KSU

1717±28 480±230 [l£]

LBNL

1540

0.9±0.3

f22]

13

3
2
1

OT
-1

-2

-3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Antidecuplet

Q = +1 (suudd) @ + (1540)

\ N(1650 ?)

* *

-1 v v 2(1755 ?)

* *

-2 \ ^ \ ^ \ ^ S 3/2 (1862?;

(ssddu) (ssuud)

i i i i i i i

-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5

L

FIG. 1: Tentative unitary anti-decuplet with €> + . Isotopic multiplet (constant values of the charge) shown by solid (dashed)
lines.

14

FIG. 2: Change of overall x 2 due to insertion of a resonance into Pu for Mr = 1660 - 1760 MeV with Y to t = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5,
0.7, and 0.9 MeV (top panel) and 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 MeV (bottom panel), and T e i/T to t = 0.1 (left column), 0.2 (midle column),
and 0.4 (right column) using tyN PWA |25l |. The curves are given to guide the eye. Vertical arrows indicate M_r = 1680 and
1730 MeV.

15

FIG. 3: Change of overall x 2 due to insertion of resonances into Su (top panel) and Pi 3 (bottom panel) for Mr = 1660 -
1760 MeV with T tot = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 MeV and r ei /r tot = 0.1 (left column) and 0.2 (right column). Notation as in
Fig. El